William Kristol writes:
For every American conservative, not once but whenever he wants it, it’s always the evening of November 4, 1980, the instant when we knew Ronald Reagan, the man who gave the speech in the lost cause of 1964, leader of the movement since 1966, derided by liberal elites and despised by the Republican establishment, the moment when we knew—he’d won, we’d won, the impossible dream was possible, the desperate gamble of modern conservatism might pay off, conservatism had a chance, America had a chance. And then, a decade later—the Cold War won, the economy revived, America led out of the abyss, we’d come so far with so much at stake—conservatism vindicated, America restored, a desperate and unbelievable victory for the cast made so many years ago against such odds.
But that was then, and this is now. Now is 2012, and it seems clear that 2012 isn’t going to be another 1980….
I’m sorry to say that Kristol is right, although his focus is off.
Rather than focusing on those who dream of Reagan, Kristol should have focused on the technocrats of the Republican Party and “conservative media” whose stock in trade in smothering the next Reagan as too risky, too simplistic, and not sufficiently schooled.
For the Republican technocrats, it always is November 4, 1980, but they dream of George H.W. Bush on the top of the ticket, not that voodoo-economics clown.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Kristol should have focused on the technocrats of the Republican Party and “conservative media” whose stock in trade in smothering the next Reagan as too risky, too simplistic, and not sufficiently schooled.”
Amen.
It feels like the top dogs and political commentators of the Repubs and Dems are working together to pre-select who they want for the Republican nominee. It may explain why the polls swing so much, the voters sense the manipulation as well.
I have to say, Operation Demoralize is up, running, and becoming fairly successful. Remember, JournOlist”s members aren’t only liberal, but conservative, as well. Ezra Kline started OD right after the 2010 rout. The media wants Mitt, it is up to the rest of us to resist that, and resist mightily. I’m tired of them assuming they can do our thinking for us. That we couldn’t possibly be educated enough to choose the person we want running; that we couldn’t possibly do our homework on each candidate. Why do you suppose the same tired old questions with requisite tired old answers are in the same old tired debates. Knowledge is power…..they don’t want to give it to us.
Ronald Reagan to me was a “B Movie” actor and sure wasn’t thrilled about him. Bedtime for Bonzo? But he sure proved me wrong in his abilities. Let’s keep a more open mind about our present candidates and pick the best one in your mind and then let’s all pray hard they surpass our expectations.
While Cane does not have the experience of Reagan, he does have the same clarity of purpose. On the other hand, Newt has the ability to motivate with logic, as well. I believe that a Gingrich/Cane ticket could be the next best thing to Reagan/Bush (and I was no fan of Bush 41) that we can have.
“Technocrat” is the new term for a GOP progressive, I suppose. Left or right, they both have the same goals: “progress” by hook or crook. Funny you should mention Bush, because between the both of them, they have done a huge amount of damage to this country in regards to executive precedents they put forward as well as UN treaties that they have signed undermining our sovereignty. Not to mention the Patriot Act. Criminal. Stack that with the Clinton era, and this country has been under assault by progressives on both sides of the aisle for decades. No wonder people keep dreaming about Reagan. He was the last American President.
The Bushes paved a golden road that allows Obama to do everything he is doing now. Thank them for his behavior.
There is a sense of entitlement, and a notion that the only real qualification for a US president (and, apparently, a Supreme Court justice) is a degree from an Ivy League school. Our country is much bigger than that, and our talent is much more widely distributed. Further, the Ivies no longer specialize in producing people with a good-quality education.
What is really happening is a deliberate attempt to cover our high offices with people who have the “right” contacts for crony capitalism. This is true of both parties.
The solution might be to support schools of government and policy in other university systems across the country. It would still be subject to corruption, but the existence of different interest groups would tend to limit the damage.
Cain reminded me of Reagan more than once last night. Reagan’s most endearing qualities were his undying optimism and his perpetually upbeat attitude.
It’s impressive that Cain was able to laugh, smile, crack a couple of jokes and be upbeat given how much undue pressure he must be under given the Politico smear job on his character for an entire week.
I wonder if Bill Kristol even realizes that he is part of the Republican establishment? His fawning over prospective president candidates more RINO and Tea Party would indicate that the conservative movement has left Bill.
1. For the Republican technocrats, it always is November 4, 1980, but they dream of George H.W. Bush on the top of the ticket, not that voodoo-economics clown.
Romney is the modern equivalent. I’d expect him to govern more competently in degree, though not in kind, than the Bushes did.
2. doombroker | November 6, 2011 at 12:14 pm: The Bushes paved a golden road that allows Obama to do everything he is doing now. Thank them for his behavior.
Only the Kennedy family comes to mind as having done more damage than the Bushes have. The horrible thought just crossed my mind of a Kennedy vs Bush election.
Romney is a stand-in: he is the closest thing to a Bush that is currently electable. No doubt the family wants to run Jeb as soon as, i.e. if, the stench of George’s administration dissipates.
Kristol’s quote got me thinking who – running or not – would be today’s Reagan. If being a leader in the conservative movement for more than a decade and holding a high-visibility office for some of that time is basic resume, I think only Gingrich comes close. Arguably Barbour, though he hardly had high visiblity while Mississippi governor. Perry has not been a recognized movement leader, nor Daniels or Pawlenty. Paul Ryan and Christie are new to the national stage (Ryan was a mere foot soldier until a few years ago). Guiliani, Pataki are not movement conservatives. Huckabee was also invisible until late 2007 and is not quite as conservative when it comes to economics.
Gingrich, while a bit taken with Third Wave-type fads and sometimes unpredictable in his policy direction, is the closest thing to an enduring and visible conservative leader we have in this election.
President Reagan was an American Conservative Hero, to all Americans, and is why he is so revered and admired and emulated.. Ronald Reagan never betrayed and abandoned his constitutional values and principles, and his constituents and supporters.. not even once, let alone twice.. President Reagan stood in there, in the face of adversity, and never waivered once.. even though he had many personal crisis’s in his life.. He always put his country first, and himself second.. It is loyalty to Constitutional Conservative Principle and Country, NOT to the person or party..
But Politicians- ie; Republican RINO’s, only want to emulate him to get the votes, to get them in power.. They could care less about Constitutional Conservative Principles, as to them, everything is cronyism, false representation, of politics as usual, corrupt to the core..
This is what made Ronald Reagan is so different, and is what and why, the next Ronald Reagan is out there somewhere.. Someone who not only exhibits it, and proves it in their actions, day in and day out, but never makes excuses, and never abandons their constituency and supporters, let alone America itself.
Of course, there are some who espouse the Ronald Reagan mantle, but find out they are hypocrites, when exposed in the heat of political battle. like Sarah Palin.. who has says one thing, but does exactly the opposite.. as that is what is called Hypocrisy, and of the worst kind.. betrayal and abandonment, by her, while her husband tries to stifle and shut down any decent and criticism, whatsoever, on the web, all across the internet spectrum, ie; web thuggery and intimidation. That’s what the Obama’s and his army of leftist thugs do.. thus Palin and her army of fanatical zealot loyalists, has joined the Liberal establishment.
“…like Sarah Palin.. who has says one thing, but does exactly the opposite.. as that is what is called Hypocrisy, and of the worst kind.. betrayal and abandonment, by her, while her husband tries to stifle and shut down any decent and criticism, whatsoever, on the web, all across the internet spectrum, ie; web thuggery and intimidation. That’s what the Obama’s and his army of leftist thugs do.. thus Palin and her army of fanatical zealot loyalists, has joined the Liberal establishment.”
I hope you can back that up with reputable links and screenshots, rather than asking us to take you at your word. I don’t believe a word of it.